John Yoo
Deputy Assistant AAttorney General for the Office of Legal CounselSenate inquiry p 18 See wikipedia:John Yoo See http://www.firejohnyoo.org/2008/06/time-line-for-torture.html = 'conversations with history' = *parents from south Korea *learned anti communism from Parents *American Diplomatic History, undergrad thesis, Harvard College *Constitutional Law/International Affairs, Yale Law *grew up in Philadelphia *Middle/high school - studied classics, greece, rome. *influential professors **undergrad ***Thomas Schwartz ***Brian Ballow **law ***Peter Schuck ***Harold Koh???? foreign affairs ***Akhil Amar *soviet union was an evil system, not reach 'coexistence', the cold war was 'attractive' *pro reagan foriegn, but yoo is libertarian domestic social issues *reagan did not cut spending *Federalist Society **'big government conservative vs those suspicious of power' **wiretapping, GWOT *mentors **judge silverman, law clerk ***first job **justice Clarence Thomas ***'not to worry so much about criticism' ***'reach what you think is the right answer, and if you think it is the right answer, defend it.' stood up for what he believed in. **orrin hatch (1 year) ***practical experience in congress, how congress works, cant be taught ---- *OLC 'to provide legal advice to the executive branch' *'court of final appeal' *in charge of foreign affairs office *20-30 people in the office *'not a great number of national security specialists in the DOJ' *saw pentagon burning on 9/11 *1993->.. studied war powers question **does the president have the power to use force abroad without any kind of congressional authorization **new argument - 'i dont think the constitution in the area of war powers is so straightjacketed... rather i think the constitution has a flexible process, either branch can act on its own, eithr branch can stop the other branch with its own powers' *emphasize constitutional flexibility *the constitution was written to be flexible *otherwise the argument is that our great presiddents have been acting unconstitutionally *lincoln, korean war, kosovo, the president didnt need the congress... but congress has to provide funds. if congress wants to end war, they just have to not give funds. *the congress and courts have power to contadict president, but dont use it *part of a small team that worked with congress to authorize afghanistan and iraq *the war in iraq was a 'standard nation state war' *GWOT 'new kind of enemy' 'conflict is different' people did not want to think about whether geneva applied *'the law is used as a way not to make decisions' *when you fight a war you have to take measures in secret. that can be at odds with the idea that you have full robust debate, compare w roosevelt *non-secret helps the enemey. especially in this conflict, enemy is almost entirely covert. *wiretapping - we need to have a discussion about wiretapping, thn alqaeda will respnod quite quickly and stop using that kind of communication. . . . in the 90s, the govt got the ability to intercept OBL's telephone calls. in the trial, the govt leaked that it had this ability. within 24 hours obl stopped using that cellphone and never used oen again. they monitor our discussion and they react fairly quickly. *had to define new terms **'the first term of definition of whether it was war' **whether its a war at all. who is really a legit meber of the enemy. how do you try the., detain them. questions that had not come up before because of the enemy was not a nation state, and the way they fight. *OLC is 'not a proactive agency' 'not a policy making arm' 'other agencies had to confront these kind of qyuestions, they came back and asked us what our best opinion was'. academia vs government, piecemeal issues come up. in the govt, *the govt has to make decisions under extraordinary pressures of time and imited information, war makes it worse. *calling it the war on terrorism is a rhetorical device that speechwriters came up with. at odds with the war as a legal or constitutional matter. we cant be at war with a ethod of fighting. we cant be at war with kamekazes. we have to be at war with an entity. i thinkk it has caused a lot of problems. *we are at work legally with al qaeda and the groups that are supporting al qaeda and anyone else involved ith the 9/11 attacks *war on terror blurs the lines *on torture memo - the congress prohibits torture in the criminal statue but doesnt give much definition of what torture is. 'we all might have very different definitions of it'. congress law did not give examples of it. *language was drawn from 'other statutes', domestic legislation. on emergency medical treatment. *no judicial decision on torture case. *we looked at the experince of the israelis, the british, their courts had interpreted the definition of torture. *we were asked "what would actually happen if the president had ordered an interrogation method which later, people, though did cross the line'... someone decided later on that... 'congress cant use the criminal law to prevent the president from using his constitutional authorities to make a decision. ' (about 42:50) *we had historically given the president, control over battlefield tactics, strategies. congress didnt interfere. the congress could restrict funding, or investiation, oversight, impeachment. but it cant if the president uses powers we dont like, its criminal *happened with reagan.... 'criminalization of policy disputes between the president in congress'. *the president did not cross that line, so that part of the memo, didnt actually become operative didnt become rlative to actual policies. *someone was concerned about the political dimensions about these kinds of eecisions... the safest thing to do was to not change policy. geneva conventions apply, every member of al qaeda is a pow, etc. risk averse political choice. pressures on the govt to stop another 9/11 attack were enormous. everyone thought thered be another one, the government has bvee fairly successfull in stopping it . *you will suffer political costs for the *this is a new kind of war, and does require a rethinking of some basic concepts, and of also how we approach war, a ense of how we approahc it and manage domestic issues. (~48 min) *'i dont think theres been any real distortion in the political process' *what happened to domestic liberties during wwii and civil war is far worse. (also mentions wilson, ie wWI) *the office t justice is to interpret the law. set rules down. separation between interpreting the law and prosecuting the policies. o the extentt there is a problem in implementation, that peoiple will go too far... if you compare it to domestic society. we have clear rules about what police can do. police ho go too far. prison guards who go too far. how do you make sure agents of the govt follow rules and hwo do you amke a syste that corrects errors. *you did not anticipate how hight h errors would be. what would the syste to correct t hose errors look like. how mcuh would it cost. *'that really isnt something the moms were about' *'not my job as a lawyer' * a big problem in these WOT issues, after a period of time you c0uld have debate, but the administration ceded the field to its critics. it had very good reasons. you would think they were arbitrary irrational decisions to aggrandize the power of the president or the VP. the administration doesnt explin itself very well. with geneva / interrogations chose not to explain at all. only in wiretap did it explain. *the exec was secretly meeting with congress about all of these things. *i dont understand why you wouldnt have that debate after its become public, self inflicted wound of the administration. = berkeley home page = ''Biography John Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), where he has taught since 1993. From 2001-03, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security, and the separation of powers. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995-96, where he advised on constitutional issues and judicial nominations. Professor Yoo received his B.A., summa cum laude, in American history from Harvard University. In law school, he was an articles editor of the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1993, and then clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Yoo was a visiting professor at the University of Chicago Law School in 2003 and at the Free University of Amsterdam in 1998. In 2006, Professor Yoo held the Distinguished Fulbright Chair in Law at the University of Trento (Italy). He has received fellowships from the Olin Foundation (for work on treaties and constitutional law) and the Rockefeller Foundation (for a book on the effects of globalization on American constitutional law). He has received the Bator Award for excellence in legal scholarship and teaching from the Federalist Society. Professor Yoo has published articles on foreign affairs, national security, and constitutional law . He is the author of The Powers of War and Peace: Foreign Affairs and the Constitution after 9/11 (University of Chicago Press, 2005) and the forthcoming War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006). '' Resume Current Position Professor of Law, 1999-present Acting Professor of Law, 1993-99 Director, Advanced Law Program (LL.M and J.S.D. degree programs), 2004-present. Education Yale Law School, J.D. 1992 Harvard College, A.B. 1989, summa cum laude, American History Experience Distinguished Fulbright Chair in Law, University of Trento (Italy), 2006. Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, 2003-present. Visiting Professor, University of Chicago Law School, 2003. Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, 2001-03. Judiciary Committee, United States Senate General Counsel, 1995-96 Justice Clarence Thomas, United States Supreme Court Law clerk, 1994-95 Judge Laurence Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit Law clerk, 1992-93 = notes = Conversations with History, Harry Kreisler, Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley. 2008. UC Regents